Background
In October 2021, Mickel McLean and his girlfriend Nancy Allen engaged in a verbal altercation in their apartment that escalated to physical confrontation. As McLean attempted to leave and retrieve his belongings from a closet, including a handgun, the two struggled over his clothing. During the physical tussle, the gun discharged. The bullet struck a neighbor, S.S., in the head after passing through the shared wall. McLean immediately checked on his neighbors and called police. He was arrested and transported to Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office headquarters for questioning.
During the custodial interview, McLean’s account of the shooting evolved. Initially, he stated the gun fired accidentally while Allen pulled him backward. Later, he described using the gun to hit Allen on the leg, during which he may have inadvertently pulled the trigger. A jury convicted McLean of second degree assault, illegal discharge of a firearm, third degree assault, two counts of domestic violence, and three counts of reckless endangerment, while acquitting him of first degree assault. He was sentenced to five years of community corrections.
McLean appealed on two grounds: that his custodial statements should have been suppressed as involuntary, and that the trial court abused its discretion by redacting approximately ten seconds of his interrogation video where the interviewing officer referenced shared Christian beliefs.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on both issues. On the voluntariness question, the court applied Colorado’s two-step test, examining whether the officers’ conduct was coercive and whether any coercive conduct played a significant role in inducing McLean’s statements. The court found no constitutional violation. Although McLean was in custody, the officers significantly reduced the pressures ordinarily associated with such interrogation—they removed his handcuffs, left the door open, and told him he could end the interview. Miranda rights were properly administered and waived. The officer’s encouragement to “tell the truth,” characterized as a permissible “soft technique,” did not overbear McLean’s will. The officer’s brief references to McLean’s deceased daughter and shared religious beliefs were not exploitative under the totality of circumstances. Critically, McLean’s account remained substantially consistent throughout—he acknowledged holding and firing the gun before any religious reference—indicating his will was not overborne.
On the redaction issue, the court held that the trial court acted within its discretion under the Colorado Rules of Evidence. While McLean argued the redaction impaired his complete defense theory, the court found minimal probative value in the excluded ten-second segment. McLean had ample opportunity to present his coercion defense: counsel discussed it during opening and closing statements, the jury viewed substantially the entire interview, and the core substance of his confession remained unchanged. The court distinguished cases like Crane v. Kentucky and Lopez v. People, where defendants had far fewer opportunities to present circumstantial evidence about their confessions’ reliability.
Key Takeaways
- Officers’ encouragement to tell the truth using the “soft technique”—without threats or promises of leniency—does not constitute coercive interrogation under Colorado law.
- Brief references to a defendant’s religious beliefs or family tragedy during interrogation are not inherently coercive absent deliberate exploitation or intimidation.
- Trial courts retain broad discretion to redact prejudicial portions of interrogation recordings when probative value is minimal and the defendant retains substantial opportunity to present a complete defense.
- Consistency in a defendant’s core admissions throughout an interrogation—such as acknowledging handling and firing a weapon—weighs heavily against finding the will was overborne by coercive conduct.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Colorado’s permissive approach to police interrogation tactics short of explicit threats or promises. The court’s endorsement of appealing to a suspect’s religious faith and brief references to personal tragedies as permissible interview methods—particularly when the suspect’s core statements remain consistent—gives law enforcement considerable latitude in custodial questioning. The decision confirms that the “soft technique” of persistent encouragement to tell the truth, even when coupled with observations that a suspect’s story doesn’t align with evidence, falls within constitutional bounds under the totality-of-circumstances analysis.
The redaction holding is also significant for trial practice. By finding that substantial access to the interrogation recording was sufficient to present a complete defense, the court gives trial judges meaningful discretion to exclude portions of recordings deemed prejudicial, even where they relate to interrogation methodology. This may limit defendants’ ability to present complete circumstantial evidence about conditions affecting statement reliability, particularly in cases where the redacted material involves sensitive topics like religion or family loss.